token.analyze

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description is free to add the non-obvious behavior it does: this is a paid 'premium' tool requiring a USDC payment on Base. That cost disclosure is genuinely valuable context beyond annotations. It still omits failure behavior when the payment hash is invalid or insufficient, keeping it out of 5 territory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second states the cost. Nothing is wasted and the critical payment requirement is front-loaded rather than buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers chain, data categories, and cost. The one gap is the payment workflow: it never says how to obtain the required paymentHash or what happens if payment validation fails, which an agent needs for a paid endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the purpose of paymentHash and the optional referralWallet kickback. The description adds only the chain context ('on Base'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb-plus-resource: real-time analytics (liquidity, volume, smart-money) for any Base token. An agent immediately knows what data it returns and on which chain. It does not distinguish itself from the likely sibling market.alpha, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It discloses the crucial precondition that usage costs 0.50 USDC, which is real gating information for deciding whether to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no comparison or routing guidance against siblings like market.alpha or contract.audit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.